HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning October 11 20051
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
October 11, 2005
Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Dan McShane
Also Present:
Sharon Roy
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL —
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE BACKGROUND
INFORMATION (AB2005 -084C)
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated authorization to collect transportation
impact fees (TIF's) depends on certain information being in the capital facilities
component of the Comprehensive Plan. Three elements are required. The first
element is deficiencies in the existing transportation system serving existing
development. The second is to identify additional demands on the existing
transportation system by new development. The third element is identification of
transportation improvements required to serve new development.
The component regarding existing deficiencies is about roads that don't meet
the level of service as specified in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. The
Engineering Division compared traffic counts from 1999 to 2005 to road capacity,
which resulted in the volume over capacity (V over C) ratio for each road. Based
on existing traffic counts, there are no deficiencies for arterial collector roads in
unincorporated Whatcom County at the current time.
Brenner stated she's hearing lots of complaints about road deficiency
problems. She read from a Bellingham Herald article about the County Road
Engineer's opinion of traffic in Birch Bay, which says it's so bad that County officials
have considered putting a halt to all development until new roads go in. She asked
what is considered sufficient and not sufficient. Aamot stated the level of service
(LOS) is specified in the Comprehensive Plan. For the urban growth areas (UGA's),
the LOS is less than .9 volume to capacity. Exceeding the ratio means they don't
meet the level of service. Regarding Birch Bay, the article may have been a
Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2005, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
reference to developments in the approval process now, which aren't included in
the traffic counts they have now. There are different methods for measuring LOS.
The Comprehensive Plan uses the method of volume /capacity.
Roy stated the Birch Bay subarea plan shows the LOS and projected LOS for
the roads, in terms of number of trips.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County could charge impact fees on a road
project that is not on a six -year plan. Aamot stated the County has to identify the
road project in the capital facilities element of Comprehensive Plan, according to
the State law. The County has identified those projects in Appendix G. The project
does not need to be in the road plan.
Roy stated a representative from the State Department of Community,
Trade, and Economic Development (CTED) told her that the Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) specifically says a project must be in the six year transportation
program. Aamot stated the staff are trying to make this document consistent with
the transportation improvement program (TIP). This document also includes road
projects that have been completed in the past six years.
Roy stated that given the planned 2020 projects for Birch Bay, there will be
four roads at an LOS of a LOS of F in the year 2020, which will be 2010 in reality.
Those roads aren't on the six year road plan. Don't pass impact fee legislation
without including them in the plan.
Joe Rutan, County Road Engineer, stated the six year transportation program
looked like a six year program, but also doesn't limit the County. The Council took
projects off the program so it would resemble what the County could actually
accomplish in six years, without narrowing down the staff too much.
Transportation impact fees will pay for a small percentage of project costs. There
will be no lack of projects on which to apply those fees. His bigger concern is in
areas such as the Acme Valley. The fees have to apply to capacity improvements,
not safety improvements.
Roy stated she assumes the improvements in the Birch Bay plan are capacity
improvements. It sounds like Mr. Rutan is saying those Birch Bay improvements
would not be eligible. Rutan stated that is correct. They would not be eligible.
However, other projects in Birch Bay would be eligible. In the Acme Valley, there
will not be any capacity improvement projects toward which to apply fees for many
years.
Roy stated the County has identified a future level of growth. This document
makes future LOS F roads not eligible for impact fees. She's uncomfortable with
that. Aamot stated RCW 82.02.070 says they have to spend impact fees within six
years of receiving them unless there is an extraordinary or compelling reason not
to.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2005, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Rutan stated the County can collect that money and use it on a project within
the six years. If they can't get the project done in six years, the County has to give
the money back, with interest.
Brenner stated no one development is supposed to pay for the full upgrade
unless that one development is the complete cause. Generally, there are four or
more developments that use an upgrade. The upgrade itself doesn't usually get
done in six years. Therefore, people will get their fees back. Basically, the
taxpayers will end up paying the cost of upgrade. Rutan stated transportation
impact fees will pay for about five percent of the project construction costs. The
fees won't pay the full cost of a project. Fees will influence the sequence and
priority of projects because the County has collected the money and needs to build
the project so it doesn't have to give back the money. Staff wanted a program it
could actually do. The County is shooting itself in the foot if the program collects
money for a project the County can't get to in six years. The County will have to
give the money back. It's a balancing act of having enough projects on there to
collect money for, and also having the capacity and budget to get those projects
done. Transportation fees will only pay about five percent of a project. The City of
Bellingham has set theirs at 15 percent. That still means they need to come up
with 85 to 95 percent of the road costs.
Brenner asked Mr. Rutan about his comment in the Bellingham Herald
article. Rutan stated that comment was a statement made in the larger context of
a discussion of a development where the staff was making an argument to get
money from the Horizons development for the intersection of Birch Bay Lynden
Road and Blaine Road. The developers were saying they shouldn't have to do that.
He was making the point that it will be an LOS issue. Without this ability to get this
money, it's no secret there have been public discussions about having concurrency
issues through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) in place, or else
developments can't happen. Getting money from that development for that
intersection was a way to meet SEPA requirements for concurrency.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she's heard for years the rationale that they can't
charge a countywide impact fee because the County may not be able to expend
that money in time. However, the County is harming itself more by erring on the
side of caution than by going forward. According to the Municipal Research &
Services Center (MRSC) website, traffic impact fees can also be used to widen
shoulders, add bicycle lanes, and do pedestrian improvements. All of those kinds of
improvements can happen in Acme, Kendall, or on any road in this county. She
knows the issue is that the County doesn't have the staff to do the design and
engineering, but it's not a reason to miss this opportunity to seize a revenue source
the County can put to good use. Rutan stated that's why staff has worked
diligently on this item and supports this item. His development manager has spent
about 33% of his time on this issue over the past 18 months. Mr. Aamot has spent
a lot of time on this issue and with the Technical Advisory Committee. They are
bringing this forward to make this happen.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2005, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if this document will solidify a countywide plan for
the County to charge traffic impact fees. She asked if the plan would preclude the
County's option of negotiating something voluntarily as well. Aamot stated it would
not, as long as they aren't duplicating. This is not an impact fee ordinance. This is
the background information required by the State in order to adopt an impact fee
ordinance. He's not sure when the ordinance will come forward. It's been done for
some time, except the rate schedule, which depends on the Engineering Division's
work with the Council of Governments (COG) on the transportation model. They
have been working on that in 2005. The six -year transportation improvement
program was significantly altered, so the staff had to go back to the drawing board
with the COG. Now, staff has no additional time to work on it until the first of next
year.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they can just call King County and base it on their
rate. Rutan stated Whatcom County has to base it on actual impacts, which is
generally done through a model. He's had many discussions with other county
engineers on transportation impact fees. The COG model that has been developed
has had to be adjusted so it's more accurate. Right now, staff is spending its time
on the immediate issue of permits that are coming in.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they are allowing that kind of pressure to catch the
County in a bad scenario because they can't take the time to pay itself to get this
done. Rutan stated they have not slowed down at all. This is the first he's heard of
that comment. He doesn't buy it. Staff is not going to let that happen. They've
worked too hard for too long to let that happen. This is the first agency he's
worked for that doesn't have a transportation impact fee. It's a good thing. He'd
like to see it happen in Whatcom County. They need to be thoughtful and
understand what it will do for the County. It won't build projects. It will impact the
sequencing of projects.
McShane stated work on the background document now, not on the
philosophy of doing a transportation impact fee. Hold questions about specific
roads until later. A transportation impact fee is not the solution, but part of a
solution that will hopefully work well. Make this effort easier. For now, make sure
the background document is proper.
Roy stated she doesn't want to pass this document without knowing when an
impact fee will come forward. The number of planned units for Birch Bay are
incredible. The overall goal is a viable impact fee program that people can live
with. She asked how this document fits into that goal. Aamot read RCW
82.02.050(4) regarding the capital facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Appendix G will provide and update this information. When they adopt the impact
fee ordinance, there will be the basis in the Comprehensive Plan for that ordinance
so it will be legally defensible.
Brenner stated she questions the validity of saying they don't have any
deficiencies now. They are doing it the wrong way. LOS should be measured by
Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2005, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
weights. She asked who made that decision. Aamot stated to change it, the
Council would adopt a Comprehensive Plan amendment by December 1. The
County Council adopted the volume over capacity (V /C) method.
Brenner asked if they could do an interim emergency amendment. It's
contradictory for staff to make a statement that they must halt all development and
have a County document say no roads are deficient. Rutan stated the V/C method
is not appropriate in all cases. Another model would be a way to augment it. His
comment wasn't that the County is going to create a moratorium. He said it's been
discussed. The statement was made as a negotiating tactic. The comment is being
used here out of context.
Brenner stated others in the Planning Department have told her a
moratorium should be put on that area until they fix this problem. Rutan stated
they have to go through different iterations of the model until they believe it is
accurate.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if it hurts the County's chances for collecting TIF's if
the County identifies problem areas. Rutan stated the County can collect against
the projects they've identified as problems the County will work on in six years. If
the County identifies issues through SEPA, it can do the transportation mitigation
fees it collects now. It would not preclude the County from doing those. He
understands that the LOS for Harborview Road in 2020 will be F. His concern is
that the County collect $50,000 for a $5 million project, and the road fund doesn't
have the capacity to get it built in that six year, so the County must give back
$100,000. When he recommended that the Council remove projects from the
transportation program, he had this in mind. He wanted to include projects for
which the County can collect fees, but he also wanted to make sure the County
could do the projects.
Roy asked why it is so awful to have to give the money back if they don't use
it. She asked why the County can't be selective with the areas that have problems.
Rutan stated the interest rate essentially doubles the money the County must
return. Another consequence is that projects are done based on whether or not
money must be spent, not on whether or not a project is needed.
Caskey- Schreiber asked about voluntary impact fees. Rutan stated the
County does and has done voluntary impact fees.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County collects funds for a specific project
when it collects the fees. Rutan stated he will make sure they can use the funds on
such things as chip seal overlays and more appropriate projects. Projects are
written so they are flexible enough to allow the money to be spent in a number of
different ways. That has caused great grief for some people in the administration.
The fees have to be managed and are a County liability that must be tracked.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2005, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is enough flexibility to use the funds no
matter what. Rutan stated he expects that any fee collected won't have to be given
back.
Roy asked if there is potential to expand what they already do into a more
voluntary approach. People in the community are questioning how and why
developers pay for their impacts. Rutan stated impact fee ordinances will continue
to evolve as they go along.
Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County
Government Affairs Director, stated the building industry is never excited about
impact fees. They add to the end cost of a home. However, she appreciates that
staff is trying to do measured implementation. Often, jurisdictions are sued
because they implement impact fees wrong. The Washington State Bar
Association's Environmental and Land Use Policy section published an article on
impact fees. One attorney in the State successfully argued school impact fees.
She's impressed with how the staff is implementing this. They're not dealing with
large dollar amounts, just how those dollars are spent.
Troy Holbrook, Senior Planner, stated the end product is a fuller concurrency
ordinance. Impact fees are just one item within a concurrency ordinance. Explore
it more aggressively. Develop a system where a developer reserves capacity. If
that capacity is not available, the developer would have to mitigate or the County
denies the development. With impact fees, people simply pay impact fees and can
develop regardless of capacity, so concurrency is more encompassing. Begin to
work on that.
Brenner asked how quick can the County change concurrency from six years
to something better. Holbrook stated six years is the RCW timeline for the County
to spend the money.
Brenner stated they don't have a concurrency ordinance, just State law.
Holbrook stated the County can use SEPA authority in the meantime. They still
need to work on transportation models to establish the nexus for whatever that
SEPA mitigation is. In the meantime, use SEPA as they work on the concurrency
ordinance. The concurrency ordinance can also include parks and certain other LOS
issues. He will find out what else they can use it for.
Roy stated she appreciates looking at the bigger picture. It is always best.
Caskey- Schreiber stated make sure it's included that some streets will need
wider shoulders, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and other physical improvements to
facilitate pedestrian traffic. She asked if there will be a bicycle lane on Lake Louise
Road when the County upgrades it. Rutan stated they don't plan a bike lane. They
plan a wide shoulder, similar to what they did on Hannegan Road.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2005, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
McShane moved to recommend approval to the full Council. He asked Mr.
Aamot to complete his presentation.
Aamot stated the first component required by State law is existing
deficiencies. They talked about road deficiencies in terms of volume over capacity.
There is a deficiency identified for the Lummi Ferry, but a new ferry is on the six -
year transportation improvement program.
The second component required by State law is to look at future traffic
demands placed upon the transportation system by new development. This is
where the COG model comes into play. In January 2005, the results were
incorporated into maps that forecast future traffic conditions in 2022. The forecast
may be low for some areas. There may be revised maps last year. Also, they
incorporated City of Bellingham model results in map G4, which shows significant
congestion on main roads entering and existing the north end of the city by 2022.
A number of roads will operate at LOS F by that time.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Aamot continued to state that the third component required by State law is
identification of transportation improvements required to serve new development.
State law allows counties to charge for improvements previously constructed. The
TAC recommends the same. Appendix G includes twelve years' worth of projects,
six years of projects already done and six years of projects planned.
In summary, this item is background information for the Comprehensive Plan
to provide a legal basis for the impact fee ordinance.
Brenner moved to amend the end of Finding of Fact 13, "...at the current
time, but the current model is not efficient enough in all cases and will be
improved." Aamot stated this finding is based on traffic counts.
Rutan stated this item is not about the model. It is strictly about the counts.
The model looks at traffic patterns as the roads get busier, which is the next step.
Capacity is strictly a calculation. The model is something different.
Brenner amended her motion to amend 13 at the end. "...at the current
time, but the current LOS analysis method is not efficient enough in all cases and
will be improved."
Fleetwood asked if that is a factual statement.
McShane stated the current way of measuring LOS is V /C. The amendment
makes a statement that the current Comprehensive Plan method of measuring LOS
is insufficient. He won't argue with that, but is not sure this is the right place to put
it in. If there is interest in measuring LOS in a different manner, it should be taken
up through a Comprehensive Plan amendment approach. He doesn't support the
Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2005, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
motion because it doesn't belong in this document. It clouds the issue of what
they're trying to get at. If they have a different measuring method, the
background document will change. The Council needs to adopt a different
measuring method before making statements like this. That will drive what this
background document would look like. There would have to be a separate debate
of whether or not V/C is the method to use in all locations. That method may be a
problem in urban growth areas.
Fleetwood stated he agrees with Councilmember McShane.
Brenner stated this section is a finding of fact. The existing wording is a
disservice to the Birch Bay area. This wording is important.
Fleetwood stated that language feels good and may need to be made known
in some way. However, it doesn't have any force or effect in these findings for this
document. If it is going to result in something actually happening, he might be
persuaded.
McShane stated the V/C ratio may not be appropriate. Leaving it in would
emphasize that they need to change the way they measure level of service in
certain parts of the county.
Roy stated she also doesn't agree with the finding. However, she
understands what this document is and why the finding is worded this way. She's
not sure the amendment gets to the concern. There are many questions about
their analysis of traffic now and in the future.
Motion failed 1 -2 with Brenner in favor.
McShane referenced Council packet page 133, regarding Cable Street. He
asked if the concept behind it is that the County may spend $3 million on the Cable
Street drain system, and that it would be an area to where impact fees could go.
Rutan stated that is correct. It would go to the road capacity improvement portion
of that project. The staff intends to do more than what is required by the road
project to treat as much drainage as it can. The County can't use the impact fee on
the stormwater project portion not related to the road. There is a road project and
a stormwater component to the project. Staff realized there is an opportunity to do
a bigger stormwater project that will actually come out of the flood fund, not road
fund.
McShane referenced Council packet page 134, regarding the Grandview
Road /West Pole Road Connector. He asked if that project is listed simply because it
is part of the six year road plan. He asked if staff visualizes a way to get money
from development to pay for that project. Rutan stated that project was on the six
year transportation improvement program. That document has been put into this
document. That project was left on the six year program because it won't be done
Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2005, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
with local funds. It is a big project. The County needs seed money to do analysis.
Grant applications will require that it be listed on the program.
McShane asked if this list of projects won't all be funded through
transportation impact fees. He asked if staff will figure out rates for these later.
McShane referenced map G4 and asked if impact fees could be collected for
those roads that connect with the city. Some impacts of growth will be on City
roads, not County roads. He asked if that is possible. Aamot stated the interlocal
agreements with the cities talk about working on a cooperative agreement. It could
take the form of developments in one jurisdiction that impact a neighboring
jurisdiction. A small percentage could be paid to the neighboring jurisdictions.
That idea will be done down the road. Get the basic impact fee ordinance in place
to see how it works, first.
McShane stated if the inclusion of map G4 leaves open that possibility, or if
the County needs to be more specific. Aamot stated this map was intended to
augment the COG maps. This map identifies impacts of future development on
roads in the area. If the County wants to charge for City roads, there would have
to be an interlocal agreement with the City, the roads would have to be in this
document, and the County would have to run the model to determine the
proportionate share for those roads. The inclusion of this map doesn't give the
County that authority.
Motion to recommend approval to the full Council carried 2 -1 with
Brenner opposed.
OTHER BUSINESS
ADDENDUM
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.80.735 TO
IMPOSE A SEASONAL CLEARING ACTIVITY RESTRICTION WITHIN
THE LAKE WHATCOM AND LAKE SAMISH WATER RESOURCE SPECIAL
MANAGEMENT AREAS BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 1 AND APRIL 30
(AB2005 -1258)
Amy Pederson, Planner II, referenced and read her memo (on file) on Council
packet page 240 dated October 3, 2005 to the Council regarding Amendments to
WCC 20.80.735(2)(e) - Season Clearing Activity Limitations. The only difference is
that they added in Lake Samish for administrative consistency, predictability in both
watersheds, and because Lake Samish is a more sensitive watershed than Lake
Whatcom.
A number of the exemptions were deleted from the interim regulations.
Section 20.80.735(2) adds the preexisting exemptions from the seasonal clearing
restrictions. It also adds a new exemption. She read the subsections.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2005, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
OTHER BUSINESS
McShane stated there are issues the committee may be interested in
pursuing. First is planned unit developments (PUD's). The PUD ordinance allows
increased density. One could say that affordable housing is not specifically spelled
out. It's a question of whether this is an issue this committee wants to take up. It
is a zoning change they would have to docket by the end of next June. It wouldn't
be a huge change. If interested, he could spend time on it.
Fleetwood stated he is not opposed to it.
Brenner stated an ordinance for permit allocation in another state gave
people the ability to build more houses, offset with making it more affordable. No
one was using that option. If Whatcom County requires that a certain percentage
be affordable, fewer people will do PUD's, which are a good thing when done right.
McShane stated it will be an option, not a requirement. It is within the
Comprehensive Plan. The Council asked to change the planning and development
standards to encourage affordable housing. The second item is to talk about where
they are with limited areas of more intense rural development (LAMIRD's).
Troy Holbrook, Senior Planner, stated the County requested a time
extension. They haven't heard a response yet. He can provide copies of the
proposed timeline. It will take at least ten community meetings plus public
hearings plus analysis. It will take about 3,000 hours of staff time to address this.
The department will ask for additional staffing for this and other issues such as
concurrency and subarea planning for the Foothills area. Now, geographic
information system (GIS) staff is doing a basic analysis on all the affected zoning
areas. He can provide maps and information on those areas. Staff is analyzing
parcel sizes and land use patterns in case the County needs to come forward with
interim zoning. Staff is also keeping a close eye on the development community to
see if there is going to be a land rush. They're starting to see some signs of that.
Brenner asked if everything is on hold, due to the court decision. Holbrook
stated it is not. The court only said the zoning in the LAMIRD's are not compliant
with the Growth Management Act (GMA). The board did not invalidate the zone. If
there is a land rush, someone could ask the board to invalidate the zoning right
away. Think through the interim zoning that would be appropriate. Upzone the
urban growth areas to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The policies for
that are already in place.
Brenner stated part of the appeal was because density wasn't high enough.
They want greater density in significantly large areas.
Fleetwood stated the question is where the logical outer boundary should be.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2005, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
McShane stated there was also a question of the urban zoning in the urban
growth areas (UGA's). The density should be at least four units per acre.
Holbrook stated there are tools in place to help handle that. Many of the
UGA's are also long -term planning areas. There won't be an immediate conversion
to four units per acre. They have to also think through the unintended
consequences. The Comprehensive Plan has policies setting a minimum density for
each UGA. The County has already started the work to upzone those UGA's to be
compliant. The County may need some time of zone change or downzone in certain
areas. The County has to do parcel size and land use analyses, including the
unintended consequences. As soon as staff knows the timeline and the type of
interim zoning that may be appropriate, they should have more discussion with the
Council.
McShane stated the third item is the two LAMIRD's before the Council. He
asked if the Council should revisit those items now. Holbrook stated he requests
that they roll over the Toad Lake docket item to the 2006 docket. Also, they could
look at the Chuckanut area again.
McShane stated he would like more information on ancient paper plats.
Holbrook stated he can talk with Councilmember McShane about it in his office.
Brenner stated she thought the reason the LAMIRD's were invalid was
because there was no backup information on the reason for the boundaries.
Holbrook stated that was part of the issue.
Brenner stated that is why they need to revisit the Chuckanut LAMIRD. The
Council said it wanted it taken out of the Chuckanut area. However, there aren't a
lot of facts about the reason for the boundary the Council established. They have
to create those findings. Holbrook stated they need to create criteria compliant
with the GMA and Revised Code of Washington (RCW). She would like information
on other reasons for the ruling. Holbrook stated it included one or two
Comprehensive Plan policies.
Brenner stated she got a complaint from a Point Roberts resident about the
policy on small town zoning in Point Roberts. Trailers that are ten feet wide aren't
allowed. However, it is not being enforced now because there is no legal
information to back it up. Legal counsel advised that they enforce something until
someone takes them to court to prove them wrong. Make sure everyone is on the
same page. Either enforce the ordinance or take out the prohibition.
Amy Pederson, Planner II, stated she spoke with legal counsel. The
prohibition is an adopted County code and legally enforceable. If someone
challenges it and the County can't provide backup information, the County would
have to strike that section of the code. The enforcement folks are looking at the
Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2005, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
life safety issues first. It's all about priority. It's low on their priority list for
enforcement. As part of the code scrub, that section may come out of the code.
Dan Warner, Bellingham, stated that following a Pro - Whatcom meeting in
August, a state official said growth is inevitable. That doesn't make sense. It's not
possible to have infinite growth in a finite space. At some point, the population of
Whatcom County will be such that there will be no more growth. It will happen
when they run out of resources, when no one wants to live here, or when elected
officials take steps to stop growth. If the Council adopts economic policies that
promote prosperity without so much growth, it can revisit the population
projections. He contacted the Port of Bellingham about its role in the economic
plan. In the mean time, they will blow through the entire 20 -year population
projection in six or seven years. Mr. Hunter's will ask that his growth allocation
plan is forwarded to the Planning Commission. He has been working on a building
permit allocation program also. He would also like his own growth allocation plan
to be forwarded to the Planning Commission. He doesn't care which one gets
adopted. There is a significant benefit in comparing the two. Some of the
problems and consequences will show up when the two are compared. Provide
them to the Planning Commission members if the issue should go forward.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
McShane stated it's promoting an economic policy that will not encourage
growth. He appreciates the sophistication he's brought to this issue. It should be
emphasized more than it is currently. It will make more of a difference to planning.
He welcomed from Mr. Warner any economic policy ideas that don't encourage
growth. He's been frustrated with recent economic policies.
David Hunter, Bellingham, stated he will present a proposal to the Council
tonight for a strictly rural permit allocation process that does not include the urban
growth areas or the cities. He is increasingly alarmed about the potential for
development in the rural area. There are tools available to them. One tool is to
use their own Comprehensive Plan to create a deliberate, thoughtful, and
conservative approach to development in the rural areas. Grapple with
development in the rural areas initially with a proposal something like his. His
proposal includes a process for affordable housing. There are areas in the country
that have affordable housing requirements. Don't fail to address that issue in a
positive way. Those words have been used by certain groups to resist what he
believes is necessary government involvement in a development.
Brenner asked if the proposal exempts single family residences. Hunter
stated his proposal specifically addresses all single - family residences, including
those in short plats and long plats. Single family residences no matter how many,
would meet with the same requirements. It would be practically impossible for
someone to set up a long plat under his proposal.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2005, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Seth Fleetwood, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 10/11/2005, Page 13